Thought I start a thread on a issue that IMO see's governments and police etc banging their heads against a wall or in some cases taking a nice piece of the pie. Soft drugs have now been made legal in some parts of The States.

IMO its a war that can never be won. Its a waste of resources and vast amounts of money. Its also very complex and I don't think Governments who are profiting will want it "drugs" legalised.

People would have safe places to get their drugs, They would get drugs they know would be safe. No more dealers on the streets. No more drug gang wars although they might find something else to fight over.

Taxes could pay for the rehab for the serious addicts and pay for their drugs so no one would need to get mugged or burgled for a fix.

Police would have more time to pursue other crimes and be able to deal with other issues more strongly in their communities.

Their would not be a need for the Legal high craze. That will just go underground as do all vices when made illegal...Look at the effects of prohibition.

I mostly agree with Ray. Since the police pullback after the riots here, parts of Baltimore have been like the OK corral with all the gun violence, most of it centering on drugs. I think bringing these black markets into the economy will also be ultimately beneficial. Very few places in the US have actually legalized marijuana. Colorado and Washington state will be interesting experiments. So far, based on early signs, I think the trend will ultimately be towards greater access. But it will take time.

I am all for it. In Colorado, the sale of marijuana is taxed, and the tax money goes into public schools. I think that's a great idea. From what I've heard from some friends, Colorado did it right, and Washington did it wrong. One person I know from Seattle told me she still uses her medical marijuana license, even though she could also buy it at the store (she doesn't have a medical condition). It also creates a lot of jobs, frees up police time and ressources and keeps people out of jail.

In Europe unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon. Of course Netherlands has coffee shops, but from what I understand it is a legal grey area, where they are merely "tolerated", which puts them at risk of being shut down at any point. I think they also made access more restrictive to foreigners in recent years. That is the main problem in Europe: the countries are so small that every country would have to legalize it. I think that will happen at some point, just not in the near future. I'm also not sure if the EU has any interest in this.

Interesting fact “According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Afghan farmers grew an unprecedented 209,000 hectares of opium poppy in 2013, surpassing the previous peak of 193,000 hectares in 2007,” the report said

ray j willings wrote:Thought I start a thread on a issue that IMO see's governments and police etc banging their heads against a wall or in some cases taking a nice piece of the pie. Soft drugs have now been made legal in some parts of The States.

IMO its a war that can never be won. Its a waste of resources and vast amounts of money. Its also very complex and I don't think Governments who are profiting will want it "drugs" legalised.

People would have safe places to get their drugs, They would get drugs they know would be safe. No more dealers on the streets. No more drug gang wars although they might find something else to fight over.

Taxes could pay for the rehab for the serious addicts and pay for their drugs so no one would need to get mugged or burgled for a fix.

Police would have more time to pursue other crimes and be able to deal with other issues more strongly in their communities.

Their would not be a need for the Legal high craze. That will just go underground as do all vices when made illegal...Look at the effects of prohibition.

have you read Chasing the Scream? by Johann Hari. He provides a detailed history of the near 100 year war on drugs highlighting just how ineffective, expensive and inhumane the policy has been. In place of the war on drugs Hari, proposes legalization, but with with preventive education and treatment funded by taxes collected on drug sales. Here's the link: http://chasingthescream.com/

While I supports legalization of recreational drugs. PEDs pose a problem for competitive events. Obviously their use is a form of fraud when they're prohibited by the rules. Perhaps the solution is to have two categories of races. Those that are drug tested and those that aren't with the participants choosing which one to compete in, and spectators which one to watch.

ray j willings wrote:Thought I start a thread on a issue that IMO see's governments and police etc banging their heads against a wall or in some cases taking a nice piece of the pie. Soft drugs have now been made legal in some parts of The States.

IMO its a war that can never be won. Its a waste of resources and vast amounts of money. Its also very complex and I don't think Governments who are profiting will want it "drugs" legalised.

People would have safe places to get their drugs, They would get drugs they know would be safe. No more dealers on the streets. No more drug gang wars although they might find something else to fight over.

Taxes could pay for the rehab for the serious addicts and pay for their drugs so no one would need to get mugged or burgled for a fix.

Police would have more time to pursue other crimes and be able to deal with other issues more strongly in their communities.

Their would not be a need for the Legal high craze. That will just go underground as do all vices when made illegal...Look at the effects of prohibition.

have you read Chasing the Scream? by Johann Hari. He provides a detailed history of the near 100 year war on drugs highlighting just how ineffective, expensive and inhumane the policy has been. In place of the war on drugs Hari, proposes legalization, but with with preventive education and treatment funded by taxes collected on drug sales. Here's the link: http://chasingthescream.com/

While I supports legalization of recreational drugs. PEDs pose a problem for competitive events. Obviously their use is a form of fraud when they're prohibited by the rules. Perhaps the solution is to have two categories of races. Those that are drug tested and those that aren't with the participants choosing which one to compete in, and spectators which one to watch.

The spectators don't really "choose" what to watch do they? Is it a coincidence that more people watch Rugby in NZ, cricket in India and NFL in the US?

People watch what they are told is important. The media would decide which event is more important the "clean" or the "(openly) doped" event.

Everything I have seen from the behaviour of the media tells me that they would choose the "clean" event and ridicule the "(openly) doped" one, thereby ensuring that all the "doped" athletes go to the "clean" one, and we end up back where we are today.

The Hitch wrote:...People watch what they are told is important. The media would decide which event is more important the "clean" or the "(openly) doped" event.

Everything I have seen from the behaviour of the media tells me that they would choose the "clean" event and ridicule the "(openly) doped" one, thereby ensuring that all the "doped" athletes go to the "clean" one, and we end up back where we are today.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. For some reason most people prefer the *illusion* of fair competition to the real thing.

Excellent. The epitome of what I've always thought about the Left. No more social struggle, no more defence of the working class, they become liberal and advocates of consumption society. Or isn't it what they always have been?

Drug taxpayers pay for building school? My a*se, taxpayers pay for the state's creditors (+ the federate entities'). If we stopped paying our debt, we'd have enough money to raise schools and to create more police posts that would easily catch the biggest criminals AND drug dealers. It's very easy to do. Only thing that is needed is incorruptibility. Besides, the cops at presents are more busy creating terrorist threats than chasing criminals (see the work of FBI informants).

This is just left-wing demagoguery at its best. I don't think it's just defeatism. There must be some sort of accompliceship within this discourse.

Echoes wrote:Excellent. The epitome of what I've always thought about the Left. No more social struggle, no more defence of the working class, they become liberal and advocates of consumption society. Or isn't it what they always have been?

Drug taxpayers pay for building school? My a*se, taxpayers pay for the state's creditors (+ the federate entities'). If we stopped paying our debt, we'd have enough money to raise schools and to create more police posts that would easily catch the biggest criminals AND drug dealers. It's very easy to do. Only thing that is needed is incorruptibility. Besides, the cops at presents are more busy creating terrorist threats than chasing criminals (see the work of FBI informants).

This is just left-wing demagoguery at its best. I don't think it's just defeatism. There must be some sort of accompliceship within this discourse.

Echoes wrote:Excellent. The epitome of what I've always thought about the Left. No more social struggle, no more defence of the working class, they become liberal and advocates of consumption society. Or isn't it what they always have been?

Drug taxpayers pay for building school? My a*se, taxpayers pay for the state's creditors (+ the federate entities'). If we stopped paying our debt, we'd have enough money to raise schools and to create more police posts that would easily catch the biggest criminals AND drug dealers. It's very easy to do. Only thing that is needed is incorruptibility. Besides, the cops at presents are more busy creating terrorist threats than chasing criminals (see the work of FBI informants).

This is just left-wing demagoguery at its best. I don't think it's just defeatism. There must be some sort of accompliceship within this discourse.

The argument for legalising drugs is recognition of individual autonomy, that paternalism is usually misguided wrt adults, as well as severe inconsistencies within existing drug laws. It's hard to figure out what supposedly makes the banned drugs worthy of bans and the allowed ones not.

The case against is usually some empirical consequentialist argument, like, allow drugs and we will have anarchy. Or that net healthcare costs are going to increase, and you don't want to pay for drug use related healthcare costs (despite it not being clear net costs would rise, and despite many being perfectly content to pay for other lifestyle choice related additional health bills, including but not limited to smoking and drinking)

Perhaps I'm not aware of some unintended consequences, but I think the case for at least limited liberalisation is solid.